coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant is a member of the Roma ethnic minority, who was born in 1943 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 3 October 1996 the applicant brought an action requesting that a flat which she had purchased from a third person, Mrs I.S., be vacated.
6.  In the meantime, Mrs I.S. brought an action before the same court challenging the validity of the contract of sale.
7.  On 2 April 1997 the Pest Central District Court suspended the proceedings relating to the applicant's action pending the outcome of the dispute over the validity of the contract of sale.
8.  In the proceedings instituted by Mrs I.S., the Pest Central District Court held six hearings until 12 January 1999, when it dismissed the plaintiff's action. On 28 October 1999 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the District Court's decision and remitted the case to first instance. Following five hearings, on 6 February 2001 the District Court dismissed Mrs I.S.'s action. This judgment was finally confirmed by the Budapest Regional Court on 13 September 2001.
9.  On the applicant's request, on 2 May 2002 the District Court held a hearing in the case concerning the evacuation of the flat in question. With an order, the court again suspended the proceedings until the applicant's ownership had been registered by the Budapest Land Registry.
10.  The applicant appealed against this order on 15 May 2002, submitting that the original copy of the contract of sale could not be located at the Land Registry with the result that the applicant's ownership of the flat could not be registered.
11.  On 29 May 2002 the Budapest Land Registry informed the District Court that the original copy of the contract had been sent to the District Court in the context of the case terminated on 13 September 2001. It requested the court to return the contract to it.
12.  On 9 July 2002 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal of 15 May 2002, holding that the registration of her ownership had to be dealt with as a preliminary question.
13.  On 4 September 2002 the Land Registry informed the applicant that the District Court had not replied to its request to date.
14.  On 17 September 2002 the applicant also requested the District Court to return the contract in question to the Land Registry.
15.  In February 2004 the applicant was informed that the contract in question had been found at the court. The proceedings are apparently either still suspended or pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ołdrzychowice, Poland.
5.  On 2 April 1985 the applicant applied to the Wrocław District Commission for Mining Damages (Okręgowa Komisja do spraw Szkód Górniczych) for compensation for damage caused to her house.
6.  On 25 September 1985 the Commission dismissed her application.
7.  The applicant appealed against this decision. Subsequently, on 7 July 1987 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) and on 24 August 1988 the Appellate Commission for Mining Damage (Odwoławcza Komisja do spraw Szkód Górniczych) quashed previous decisions given in the case.
8.  On 7 April 1992 the District Commission for Mining Damage gave its decision in which it partly allowed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed against this decision.
9.  On 8 December 1993 the Wrocław Regional Commission held a hearing.
10.  On 2 September 1994 a new law entered into force which provided that the civil courts would be competent to examine applications for compensation for mining damage and abolished the Commission for Mining Damage (Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994, Prawo geologiczne i górnicze).
11.  Accordingly, the applicant’s case was transferred to the Świdnica Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
12.  The first hearing was held on 24 April 1995. The court ordered that an expert opinion be prepared. The opinion was submitted to the court on 26 April 1996.
13.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 18 November 1996, 17 March and 19 September 1997, 13 February 1998 and 10 February 1999. The court ordered several new expert opinions.
14.  On 17 February 1999 the Świdnica Regional Court gave judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s action.
15.  On 10 March 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.
16.  On 11 May 1999 the Wrocław Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.
17.  On 1 October 1999 the Świdnica Regional Court held a hearing. The trial court ordered that new expert opinions be prepared. The hearing scheduled for 19 January 2000 was adjourned.
18.  At the hearing held on 16 February 2000 the Świdnica Regional Court gave judgment. The court partly allowed the applicant’s action and granted her compensation.
19.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.
20.  On 31 May 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Komárom, Hungary.
5.  On 29 April 1991 the applicant brought an action against his former spouse seeking the division of the matrimonial property.
6.  Following three hearings, the District Court was inactive between 9June 1993 and 19 October 1995. The District Court then held four more hearings. On 13 March 1997 the defendant requested that a real-estate expert be appointed. Due to a delay in depositing the expert’s costs attributable to the parties, the expert was only appointed on 19 January 1998. Having obtained evidence from numerous witnesses as well as from a judicial real-estate expert, on 4 June 1998 the Komárom District Court ruled on the division of the property.
7.  On 10 February 1999 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court confirmed the first-instance decision in substance.
8.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which on 29 December 2000 upheld the Regional Court’s judgment. This decision was served on the applicant on 16 January 2001.
4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Praszka.
5.  On 28 March 1991 the applicant lodged a motion with the Oleśno District Court, claiming a division of inheritance and dissolution of co-ownership of a certain property.
6.  The court held hearings on: 15 May 1991, 28 August 1991, 29 January 1992, 10 April 1992, 18 May 1992, 24 August 1992, 30 September 1992, 23 February 1993, 7 June 1993 and 28 March 1994.
7.  Having regard to the lack of progress in the proceedings, and apparently aiming at obtaining possession of the property by other legal means, on 13 April 1993 the applicant lodged a motion with the Oleśno District Court, claiming acquisitive prescription of half of the property in question. By a decision of 11 May 1994 the Oleśno District Court dismissed her motion. By a decision of 27 September 1994 the Częstochowa Regional Court dismissed her further appeal and upheld the contested decision.
8.  Further hearings in the dissolution case were held on 3 June 1998, 30 December 1999, 29 March 2000 and 23 May 2000.
9.  The court ordered a number of expert opinions. They were submitted to the court on: 22 December 1991, 3 July 1992, 8 September 1997, 12 May 1998, 16 June 1998, 9 December 1998, 9 February 1999, 16 April 1999, 11 May 1999, 8 October 1999 and 27 November 2000.
10.  By a decision of 10 January 2001 the Oleśno District Court stayed the proceedings due to the fact that one of the parties to the proceedings had died. By virtue of the same decision the court resumed the proceedings, having regard to his heirs' request that the proceedings be resumed.
11.  On 3 June 2003 the Oleśno District Court gave a judgment on the merits.
12.  On 16 December 2003 the Opole Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.
13.  By a decision of 28 June 2004 the Supreme Court declined to examine the cassation appeal, considering that it had not been shown that arguable public interest grounds existed which would justify the examination of the appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Kielce, Poland.
5.  On 8 and 9 November 1993 the national newspaper A published articles about unemployment and unfair treatment of employees by certain employers.
6.  On 9 December 1993 the applicant lodged with the Kielce Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a civil action for protection of his personal rights (o ochronę dóbr osobistych) against the newspaper A and journalists B and C. The applicant, who at that time was the president of the “P” company and the president of the Polish Party of Unemployed, claimed that the articles included untrue information about him.
7.  On 11 March 1994 the applicant was partly exempted from the court-fees.
8.  On 8 June 1994 the trial court held the first hearing.
9.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 14 November and 5 December 1994.
10.  In 1995 the trial court held six hearings and heard several witnesses.
11.  On 30 January, 18 April, 6 September and 3 October 1996 the court held hearings.
12.  On 10 October 1996 the Kielce Regional Court gave judgment. It dismissed the applicant's action.
13.  On 30 December 1996 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.
14.  On 28 February 1997 the Kraków Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing and dismissed his appeal.
15.  On 5 May 1997 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
16.  On 22 December 1997 the Supreme Court allowed his appeal, quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.
17.  On 3 July 1998 the Court of Appeal held a hearing and gave judgment. It again dismissed the applicant's appeal.
18.  On 10 December 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
19.  On 4 July 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation appeal as it raised no important legal issues and was manifestly ill-founded.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Dębno, Poland.
5.  In 1989 the applicant was injured in a traffic accident. Later, a medical board assessed his disability as being of the first degree (serious) and he was granted a disability pension. The applicant also applied to PZU S.A., an insurance company, for a monthly allowance compensating him for his loss of ability to work (renta uzupełniająca). The company refused his request.
6.  On 14 May 1991 the applicant sued PZU S.A. in the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking an award of a monthly allowance. On 23 November 1992 the court partly granted his claim. The applicant appealed.
7.  On 19 May 1993 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) partly quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case.
8.  The Regional Court held hearings on 13 January and 25 August 1994. At the hearing held on 27 October 1994 the applicant modified his claim. On 24 March 1995 the trial court asked the applicant to specify his claim. On 9 May 1995 the applicant submitted to the court his modified statement of claim.
9.  The court held hearings on 8 June 1995, 7 December 1995 and 29 February 1996. On 5 April 1996 the court ordered an expert opinion. It was submitted to the court on 31 May 1996. On 17 July 1996 the court ordered an opinion from yet another expert. The expert submitted it to the court on 27 July 1996.
10.  The court held a hearing on 20 February 1997. The hearing scheduled for 22 May 1997 was cancelled. On 15 December 1997 a supplementary opinion was submitted to the court.
11.  Further hearings were held on 29 January 1998 and 20 April 1999. On 17 June 1999 yet another supplementary expert opinion was submitted to the court. On 4 November 1999 the court held a hearing.
12.  On 18 November 1999 the Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. On 13 June 2000 the Poznań Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment is final.
4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Piotrków Trybunalski, Poland.
5.  In December 1993 the applicant, at that time seventeen years old, was hit by a car driven by a certain Mr R.Z. As a consequence of the accident, his left leg had to be amputated.
6.  On 17 June 1994 the applicant, represented by his mother, lodged with the Piotrków Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a civil action against the State Insurance Company (Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń). He claimed 800,000,000 old zlotys in compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage.
7.  On 18 June 1994 the trial court exempted the applicant from payment of court-fees.
8.  On 24 August 1994 the first hearing was held. The trial court requested the applicant's medical file from a hospital and ordered an expert opinion.
9.  At the next hearing held on 1 February 1995 the court heard an expert witness and requested a second expert opinion.
10.  Between 2 February and 21 November 1995 no hearings were held.
11.  At the hearing held on 22 November 1995 the trial court gave the parties a time-limit for reaching a friendly settlement.
12.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 11 March and 27 November 1996. At those hearings the court heard the applicant's mother and an expert witness.
13.  The hearing scheduled for 26 February 1997 was cancelled due to illness of the applicant's counsel.
14.  On 27 February 1997 the applicant modified his claim. He in addition sought a monthly allowance.
15.  Afterwards, hearings were held on 5 March and 9 April 1997. Mr. R.Z., the driver responsible for the accident, joined the proceedings as an intervener.
16.  Between 10 April 1997 and 10 September 1998 no hearings were held.
17.  On 11 September and 9 October 1998 the trial court held hearings at which it heard an expert witness and the applicant.
18.  On 2 December 1998 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court gave judgment. The trial court awarded the applicant compensation and a monthly pension.
19.  On 28 January 1999 the defendant lodged an appeal against this judgment.
20.  On 16 April 1999 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing and gave judgment. It amended the first-instance judgment regarding interest and ordered the applicant to reimburse the costs of the proceedings incurred by the defendant.
21.  On 1 June 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
22.  On 23 January 2002 the Supreme Court held a hearing and gave judgment. The Supreme Court partly allowed his cassation appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Cracow, Poland.
5.  On 5 February 1987 the applicant lodged a claim for division of her matrimonial property with the Cracow District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
6.  The court held the first hearing on 15 July 1987.
7.  Between 1987 and 1991 the court held 14 hearings (6 in 1987, 1 in 1988, 4 in 1989, 2 in 1990 and 1 in 1991).
8.  On 16 November 1993 and 23 September 1994 the court held hearings.
9.  On 5 June 1995 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. The expert opinion was delivered to the court on 11 January 1996.
10.  On 25 August 1995, 17 April, 24 June and 23 September 1997 the court held hearings.
11.  On an unspecified date in May 1998 the court decided to obtain fresh expert evidence. The expert submitted his report to the court on 26 June 1998.
12.  On 31 August 1998 the court held a hearing.
13.  On 29 December 1998 the court gave judgment.
14.  During the proceedings the composition of the court changed 9 times.
15.  The applicant several times complained to the President of the Cracow Regional Court about the slow conduct of the proceedings. In reply, the President admitted that the proceedings were indeed too long and informed the applicant that he would supervise their further conduct.
16.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicant’s husband lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment with the Cracow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
17.  On 15 February 2000 the court dismissed the appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Budapest.
5.  In the context of an inheritance dispute, two civil proceedings were brought against the applicant.
6.  On 2 July 1990 Mr J.F.J. brought an action against the applicant before the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court challenging her status as an heiress. On 10 November 1993 the District Court dismissed the action.
7.  On 12 July 1990 Mrs T.K. brought another action against Mr J.F.J., Mr F.J. and the applicant before the Pest Central District Court.
8.  On 4 September 1990 the District Court held a hearing and requested the parties to submit motions.
9.  On 26 October and 12 December 1990 the District Court held hearings. At the hearings some of the parties did not appear since the District Court had failed to summon them in accordance with the procedural rules. A hearing scheduled for 8 February 1991 was re-scheduled.
10.  On 10 April and 20 June 1991 the District Court held hearings. On the latter date it stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings before the XVIII/XIX District Court. In the latter proceedings, on 24 November 1992 the court held a hearing. On 27 May 1993 the District Court appointed an expert. On 10 November 1993 the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The judgment became final on 15 April 1994.
11.  At the plaintiff's request, on 13 October 1994 the Pest Central District Court resumed its proceedings. Subsequently, another judge was appointed to hear the case.
12.  On 24 January 1995 the District Court held a hearing. At the hearing the plaintiff withdrew her action in respect of Mr J.F.J. and Mr F.J.
13.  On 18 May 1995 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of Mr J.F.J. and Mr F.J. and ordered the applicant to submit further documents.
14.  On 26 October 1995 the District Court delivered a judgment and partly admitted the plaintiff's claims. The applicant appealed.
15.  On 20 June 1996 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and delivered a judgment which was pronounced on 27 June 1996. It partly quashed the District Court's decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
16.  In the resumed proceedings, on 30 January, 28 February, 24 June and 18 November 1997, the District Court held hearings.
Subsequently, another judge was appointed to hear the case. On 30 January 1998 the District Court heard three witnesses.
17.  On 22 July 1998 the District Court appointed a real-estate expert.
Subsequently, yet another judge was appointed to hear the case. On 23 June 1999 the District Court held a hearing.
18.  On 1 July 1999 the District Court delivered a judgment. The applicant appealed.
In the appeal proceedings, the hearings scheduled for 10 February and 6 July 2000 were re-scheduled due to the illness of one of the judges.
19.  On 16 May and 26 October 2000 the Regional Court held hearings. On the latter date it delivered a judgment which was pronounced on 2 November 2000.
4.  The applicants were born in 1975 and 1970 respectively.
5.  On 19 and 20 August 1995 respectively the applicants were taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Aydın Security Directorate on suspicion of their membership to an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP/C.
6.  In their police statements the applicants accepted the accusations against them.
7.  On 22 August 1995 the applicants were brought before the investigating judge at the Aydın Magistrate’s Court, where they repeated the statements they had made to the police. The investigating judge ordered that they be placed in detention on remand.
8.  In an indictment dated 6 September 1995, the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants. He charged the first applicant with being member of an armed gang under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and the second applicant with aiding and abetting an armed gang under Article 169 of the Criminal Code.
9.  During the hearings before the Izmir State Security Court, the applicants denied the statements they had made to the police and the investigating judge.
10.  On 25 March 1997 the Izmir State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced the first applicant to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and the second applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. Neither the applicants nor their lawyers were present in this last hearing.
11.  The applicants appealed. On 12 November 1997 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal, upholding the Izmir State Security Court’s reasoning and assessment of evidence. The decision, which was pronounced in the absence of the applicants and their lawyers, was deposited with the Registry of the Izmir State Security Court on 21 November 1997.
4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Milan.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Milan, which he had let to G.R. and R.M.
6.  In a writ served on the tenants on 8 February 1983, the applicant informed them of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 8 March 1983, which was made enforceable on 8 May 1983, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 July 1984.
8.  On 14 January 1985, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.
9.  On 8 February 1986, he informed the tenants that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 February 1986.
10.  Between 25 February 1986 and 1 July 1999, the bailiff made fifty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
11.  On 28 July 1999, the applicant sold the flat.
4.  The applicant, who was born in 1971, lives in Ankara.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 12 November 1991 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody by police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate on suspicion of his involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation, namely the TDKP/GKB (Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party / Young Communist Union).
7.  On 19 November 1991 the applicant gave a statement to the police, allegedly under duress and confessed that he had been involved in certain illegal activities organised by the TDKP/GKB.
8.  On 25 November 1991 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court questioned the applicant in relation to his involvement in the TDKP/GKB. The applicant denied the content of his written statement of 19 November 1991 and alleged that it had been taken under duress.
9.  On 26 November 1991 the applicant was brought before a single judge of the Ankara State Security Court, who after taking his statement ordered his release.
10.  On 30 December 1991 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant and fourteen other defendants, accusing them of membership of an illegal organisation. The prosecution requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced pursuant to Article 7 § 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
11.  On 13 April 1993 the Ankara State Security Court, composed of three judges including a military judge, convicted the applicant as charged. The court held that there was sufficient and satisfactory evidence to disclose that he had committed the alleged offences. It accordingly sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. Both the applicant and the public prosecutor appealed.
12.  On 8 February 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court on the ground that the applicant should have been convicted under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code on account of his membership to an illegal organisation.
13.  On 16 March 1994 the Ankara State Security Court, to which the case had been remitted, held its first hearing and asked the accused persons to submit their final observations. On 27 May 1994 the applicant submitted his final observations and denied the charges against him. The court held thirty-three more hearings after this date, in search of one of the accused persons, who was on the run.
14.  On 27 November 1997 the Ankara State Security Court applied the decision of the Court of Cassation and sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code
15.  On 17 September 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request for appeal.